Clarifies the determination of compensation in motor accident claims based on evidence of income and entitlement to consortium.

J U D G M E N T

The aforesaid appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the 3^rd respondent/insurer in O.P.(MV) No.828/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 26/09/2019. The respondents herein are the claim petitioners in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. According to the claimants, on 03/12/2016 at 05:00 a.m., while the deceased was pillion riding on motorcycle bearing registration no.KL02AZ4770 and when he reached the place by name Kalluvathukkal junction, the said vehicle due to the rash and negligent riding of the second respondent overturned as a result of which the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries, to ₹

which he succumbed. A sum of 15,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.

3. The first respondent/owner and the second respondent/rider filed a joint written statement contending that the compensation claimed was quite excessive. The age, occupation and income of the deceased were also disputed.

4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending vehicle but denied negligence on the part of the second respondent. The age, occupation and income of the deceased were disputed. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was quite excessive.

5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/rider of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an ₹

amount of 15,19,800/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the third respondent/insurer has come up in appeal.

7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

8. Heard both sides

9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following head is challenged by the third respondent/insurer -

Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that though the deceased was alleged to be a ₹

catering-cum-construction worker earning an amount of 15,000/- per month, no evidence either oral or documentary was produced. Hence, going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd , (2011) 13 SCC ₹

236, the notional income was liable to be fixed only at 10,500/- and hence the amount fixed by the Tribunal needs to be Per contra appropriately reduced. , it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that the deceased was working as a construction worker as well as a catering worker and therefore the amount that has been granted by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and does not require any deduction.

As pointed out by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced to show that the deceased was a catering worker as well as a construction worker. Ext.A1 FIS shows that the deceased was a catering worker. However, there is no evidence to show that he was a construction worker also. Hence, in such circumstances, I find ₹

that fixing the notional income at 12,000/- would be just and reasonable.

Compensation for loss of consortium It is seen that the claim petitioners herein are the wife and son of the deceased. However, no compensation towards loss of consortiu